TexasCHLforum.com

Snap E Tom wrote:It'll be fun to see what happens to AA and Continental/United's stock if Dallas and Houston are shut down. Then, it'll be fun to see what happens to the stock markets. Then, it'll be really fun to see what Obama does.

Totally hypothetical, but Obama would probably tell those airlines to relocate to other states and forget about Texas. I'm not sure if he'd beat them with a stick (threaten them with fines, jail, etc.) or use a carrot (give them bailout moneys, etc.) to make them move.

Scott in Houston wrote:I never said that states rights was a myth in and of itself. What I said was, saying that the civil war was fought primarily over states rights and not slavery, is not true.


States rights was an issue even before the Constitution! I'm very aware of the history of states rights and the struggle there. The founders struggled with it themselves. The Articles of Confederation reflect this... giving too much power to each state. Finding that balance was and will always be a struggle.

Thanks for the well thought out and educational post. I think you may have misunderstood what I typed to mean one thing it didn't.

My point is, the civil war was fought because of slavery. That was the tipping point. Had we not had slavery as an issue or part of the struggle, we would still have the states rights struggle as we do now, but we would not have seen bloodshed.

I believe Lincoln's election was a tipping point, but keep in mind that Lincoln had said he was only against allowing any expansion of slavery (considered a moderate republican). He claimed that the federal government did not have the unilateral authority to prohibit slavery during the campaign (unless the Constitution was amended, which it was in 1865 with the 13th Amendment).

Also consider that perceived power at a governmental level comes from the belief that your interests and positions are held by those elected and in power (it's not a sure thing even when you get someone in there you think is on your side...e.g. campus carry).

Lincoln was elected President, but around 60% of the popular vote was against him (he carried a majority of electoral votes with industrial northern states and their significant electoral size advantage). So, if 60% of the nation voted for someone other than Lincoln, how many people in the southern states do you think voted for Lincoln?

In a struggle for political power (or at least some protection from those in power), it's hard to imagine many in the south being comfortable with Lincoln's election since it's likely very few southerners could identify any friends or neighbors that had voted for Lincoln. They felt disenfranchised and didn't want to be railroaded by a federal government that didn't represent them (and had hurt them in the past with non-uniform tariffs). Besides, when did Lincoln issue the emancipation proclamation and why didn't it cover all slave states?

ETA: I like your battle flag too

Scott in Houston wrote:

chasfm11 wrote: For a historical perspective, however, the slide against States rights has gone on for a very long time. In spite of commonly held beliefs, the Civil War was about States rights and slavery just happened to be one of the issues under that topic. We all know how that turned out.

Love the rest of your post, but have to jump on this. Your statement shows what I believe is a southern myth about states rights.
It was first and foremost about slavery. States rights just happened to go along for the ride. (the other way around from your comment)

If it was truly *only* or *first and foremost* about states rights, then why couldn't a state in the Confederate States elect to ban slavery? They couldn't. Under the Confederate Constitution, slavery was required/mandated. No states rights there... They were all about ensuring the continuation of slavery. The whole process began even before Lincoln came into office just because they feared his anti-slavery point of view. Taxation and other states rights issues jumped on board after it began and was spawned by slavery.

I believe the real myth is the belief that the war was primarily about states rights. I think that belief of this myth is spawned from the fact that it's hard for us from the South to believe our ancestors would actually support and fight over such an evil practice, but the sad truth is, they did.

I realize this is off-topic, but you citing the "southern myth about states rights" made me want to reply.

The struggle between states rights and the federal powers existed DECADES before the civil war. The north and the south had different economies which were impacted by federal actions such as trade tariffs. The northern states with their industrial economy favored tariffs and sought protection from foreign trade. The southern states were mostly export oriented and were negatively impacted when the federal government imposed tariffs (non-uniform tariffs, at that).

Protective tariffs passed by the federal government in the 1820s and 1830s (to benefit northern states) were very much opposed by southern exporting states and South Carolina passed an Ordinance of Nullification declaring that tariffs passed by the U.S. were not valid within the state of South Carolina.

In response, President Jackson sent the U.S. Navy to South Carolina and threatened to commence military action on the ground to enforce the tariffs. This was in 1832. ...and yes, that same South Carolina where Fort Sumter is located.

Your points about the Confederate States not being able to elect to ban slavery is lost on me. The confederacy permitted and protected the institution of slavery, but it was not absolute. Individual states COULD ban slavery within their individual state, but such a state could not deny the right of transit or temporary stay of citizens of other states (and their slaves). Also, international slave trading WAS banned by the confederacy.

You have to consider the context and circumstances when the confederacy was established. The only hope of southern states mounting a defense was to unite and have financial backing. So, southern secessionists and slaveholders agreed on the establishment of the confederacy, but you have to remember who would have influence on the process. As in any case with politics, those with financial means tend to get what they want. So when the confederacy was established, the CSA constitution reflected mostly a duplicate of the U.S. Constitution, with modifications to placate plantations/slaveholders and other secessionists (permitting slaveholding and limiting the federal powers that had hurt the south - read non-uniform tariffs).

So, there were many other factors involved and they started even before anyone in the south had heard of Lincoln.

Senate sponsor Dan Patrick (R-Houston) pulled the bill:

“I will pull HB 1937 down, but I will stand for Liberty in the state of Texas,” Patrick said.

Patrick added that TSA officials had warned him passing the bill “could close down all the airports in Texas,” which he regarded as a ‘heavy handed threat’ by the federal government.

The staff of Rep. David Simpson said the DOJ had “thrown down the gauntlet” in using such stark language to oppose the bill.

Wouldn't standing for "Liberty" be NOT pulling the bill? If this bill was passed, the TSA gropers (federal employees) would have effective immunity to the State law (making it mostly symbolic). I would have called their bluff and get/keep the TSA groping debate going.

I can't believe they would pull this bill in reaction to the bullying by the feds. That's weak.